ALB vs. LIT

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

ALB (Albemarle Corporation) is a stock, while LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) is Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index. Over the past 10 years, ALB returned 4.77%/yr vs 12.66%/yr for LIT. Their 0.68 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently.

Performance

ALB vs. LIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Albemarle Corporation (ALB) and Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ALB achieves a -16.41% return, which is significantly lower than LIT's 7.18% return. Over the past 10 years, ALB has underperformed LIT with an annualized return of 4.77%, while LIT has yielded a comparatively higher 12.66% annualized return.

ALB

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: -13.22%
• 6M: -30.71%
• YTD: -16.41%
• 1Y: 75.60%
• 3Y*: -16.02%
• 5Y*: -9.53%
• 10Y*: 4.77%
• ALL TIME*: 10.63%

LIT

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: -9.55%
• 6M: -0.62%
• YTD: 7.18%
• 1Y: 70.85%
• 3Y*: 2.87%
• 5Y*: -2.82%
• 10Y*: 12.66%
• ALL TIME*: 6.36%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ALB Albemarle Corporation	$278.16M	$258.77M	$355.35M
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	$15.35M	$16.35M	$33.70M

ALB vs. LIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ALB Albemarle Corporation	-16.41%	67.72%	-39.50%	-32.80%	-6.63%	59.76%	105.39%	-3.28%	-38.89%	50.22%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	7.18%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-29.91%	36.74%	127.88%	3.27%	-28.63%	64.19%

Correlation

The correlation between ALB and LIT is 0.69, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.74
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2010	0.68

The correlation between ALB and LIT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ALB vs. LIT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ALB

ALB Risk / Return Rank: 77
ALB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ALB Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
ALB Omega Ratio Rank: 76
ALB Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
ALB Martin Ratio Rank: 77

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 78
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 79
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 69

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ALB vs. LIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Albemarle Corporation (ALB) and Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ALB	LIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.28	2.05	-0.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.90	2.61	-0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.33	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.61	2.62	-1.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.40	8.37	-3.97

ALB vs. LIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ALB Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is lower than the LIT Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ALB and LIT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ALB vs. LIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ALB drawdown since its inception was -83.90%, which is greater than LIT's maximum drawdown of -65.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ALB and LIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ALB	LIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.90%	-65.91%	-17.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-47.38%	-26.84%	-20.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-74.05%	-49.44%	-24.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-83.90%	-65.91%	-17.99%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-83.90%	-65.91%	-17.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-61.95%	-25.06%	-36.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.83%	-33.48%	+12.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.27%	8.40%	+8.87%

Volatility

ALB vs. LIT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Albemarle Corporation (ALB) is 8.79%, while Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) has a volatility of 9.34%. This indicates that ALB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ALB	LIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.79%	9.34%	-0.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.94%	25.15%	+15.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	59.34%	34.47%	+24.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	54.68%	31.93%	+22.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	48.44%	30.80%	+17.64%

Dividends

ALB vs. LIT - Dividend Comparison

ALB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%, more than LIT's 0.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ALB Albemarle Corporation	1.38%	1.15%	1.87%	1.11%	0.73%	0.67%	1.04%	2.01%	1.74%	1.00%	1.42%	2.07%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.73%	0.49%	0.93%	1.11%	0.99%	0.22%	0.40%	1.85%	2.52%	3.26%	2.15%	0.24%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ALB and LIT in my portfolio?

ALB and LIT have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ALB or LIT?

LIT has higher volatility (9.34%) compared to ALB (8.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ALB dropped -83.90% vs LIT's -65.91%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.28), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.